SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This story might be helpful to those tearing their hair out about the news lately:
I grew up believing that following the news makes you a better citizen. Eight years after having quit, that idea now seems ridiculous—that consuming a particularly unimaginative information product on a daily basis somehow makes you thoughtful and informed in a way that benefits society.
But I still encounter people who balk at the possibility of a smart, engaged adult quitting the daily news.
...
A few things you might notice, if you take a break:1) You feel better
A common symptom of quitting the news is an improvement in mood. News junkies will say it's because you've stuck your head in the sand.
But that assumes the news is the equivalent of having your head out in the fresh, clear air. They don't realize that what you can glean about the world from the news isn't even close to a representative sample of what is happening in the world.
...
2) You were never actually accomplishing anything by watching the newsIf you ask someone what they accomplish by watching the news, you'll hear vague notions like, "It's our civic duty to stay informed!" or "I need to know what's going on in the world," or "We can't just ignore these issues," none of which answer the question.
...
A month after you've quit the news, it's hard to name anything useful that's been lost. It becomes clear that those years of news-watching amounted to virtually nothing in terms of improvement to your quality of life, lasting knowledge, or your ability to help others. And that's to say nothing of the opportunity cost. Imagine if you spent that time learning a language, or reading books and essays about some of the issues they mention on the news.
Read on for the rest of the list.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:19PM
To be honest, I try to read the news presented by Fox and then something more left wing (I stopped even visiting CNN's website after the redesign--and then I made sure I didnt visit it on accident after I read the privacy policy. Maybe they are just being honest, but it scared me away more than their biases).
That is sort of reading between the lines -- if both sides of the spectrum agree on something or disagree vehemently on something -- then that's the news. (Well, I guess any agreement would be the newsworthy thing. The rest is just politics.)
I try to be a moderate, but not neutral. It can be really hard to be a moderate these days, and I can only hope I am able to read between the lines and spot propaganda pieces without being unduly influenced. (To that end, I can find something I disagree with in nearly all the options provided, helping me stay moderate!)
(Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:15PM
Could you explain the virtues of this "moderate" thing? I hear it a lot, nobody ever manages to explain why it is a good idea. We live in a society on the verge of Civil War 2.0, divided over real and deep philosophical questions such that it is hard to imagine one nation state containing both ideas peacefully. Pretending the problem don't exist and that some sort of middle path exists doesn't sound reality based, but a lot of people insist on it.
Progressives want Socialism and then Communism. Their only difference from revolutionary Marxists is the belief they can attain the goal through slow Progress, without the bloodbath of a Revolution.
Americans want the country defined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights and clarified in The Federalist.
How can both of these groups peacefully co-exist without a breakup of the U.S.? That is the question that drives every political debate, whether stated or left unstated, whether the speaker even realizes it themselves. The Progressives hold that it isn't solvable and have spent the last Century working to eradicate their opponents. I agree that peaceful coexistence isn't possible and believe it is they who should be driven out of all positions of responsibility and influence, both civic and cultural and seek the means to implement that goal. The moderate position is?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:44AM
Hmmm well this will almost certainly do no good, but i'll give it a shot.
I'm beginning to think you're actually sincere in your beliefs, beliefs which I consider to be mostly horrendous, but thats by the by.
I think sometimes, with questions like "The moderate position is?" you'd actually like to here the opposing point of view, I think you'd like the discussion, I think you're genuinely intrigued. And in truth it would be interesting to have that discussion, I've read moldbug et al (you're neo-rx right?) and whilst I dont agree at all, they do have some interesting points of view, some questions that are worth exploring.
But (you knew that was coming) the problem is that as long as you continue to troll so hard, venemously and obviously, the people who could have that thoughtful, respectful discussion with you (eg me) are just not going to bother.
So how about you ease up a little, let some air in and maybe fruitful discussion can be had?
Or you can continue to stoke the hate and get short shrift in return.
Your move.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:22PM
Well said.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:21PM
I agree we're on the verge of Civil War 2.0. But the sides in that coming war are not the sides you think they are. Your grasp of political reality are frozen in Cold War amber, unable and unwilling to adjust to what the world is today. "Left vs. Right," "Liberal vs. Conservative," "Communist vs. Fascist," etc, etc. They are terribly hackneyed, threadbare labels that don't fit anymore.
The real divisions are the ones that Occupy Wall Street framed as "1% vs. 99%." In the Drudge universe, they were all the countless comments rooting for Trump at the expense of the elites in the Republican party and in the country. Many of them borrowed Occupy's language to frame the conflict. The people who drove this election see themselves as part of the 99% and they come from both sides of the discursive divide you're obsessed with, and which you perpetuate. That's why your divisive labels have been emptied of meaning and truly impede progress in America as a society (that's "progress" as measured by greater opportunity, economic prosperity, and rising standard of living).
In terms of what "moderation" means, it means giving every man his due and listening to what he has to say rather than sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting nah nah nah nah nah, interspersed with slogans supplied by puppetmasters perched in seats of power. It does not mean that moderates believe in nothing or are wishy-washy.
If you really want to understand anything about the events unfolding around us, then you will cease repeating mindless slurs against others and listen to what they're saying and consider it honestly. I mean, I'm pretty sure you have no interest in doing anything but insulting as many people as you can, as harshly as you can, but if you wanted to understand the world better that's what you would do.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:57PM
That was my practice as well for a long time. I would read sources like Huffington Post and Drudge side-by-side. This election ended the reading of Huffington Post and its confederates, for me. The heights of self-delusion and propaganda they were going to to cram Hillary down everyone's throats, in direct contradiction of the principles they purport to support, was sickening. I know some others felt the same way I did, because I checked in with those sites just after the election to gauge their reaction and there were folks saying, "This is the result of rigging the primary game for a candidate like Hillary." I checked in again late last week to see if the initial shock had passed, if any of them had come back down to earth, and nope, they hadn't. They're spinning off into an ever more irrelevant and delusional tangential parallel universe.
I can read Drudge comfortably, though, because I don't expect those readers to agree with me. Their sacred cows and hobby horses are as plain as the nose on their face. It's easy to look past that and try to understand what their motivations are. Yes, some of them are motivated by evil. But most aren't, and are simply misconstrued as such by their detractors. It's more likely they're more comfortable with the discursive milieu on offer there, even though what they're talking about is essentially the same thing that their fellow citizens on the other side of the discursive divide are worried about.
Washington DC delenda est.